Advertisement

Training robotic community surgeons: our experience implementing a robotics curriculum at a rural community general surgery training program

  • William KrauseEmail author
  • Julio Bird
Original Article

Abstract

Robotic-assisted surgical procedures are being increasingly used in general surgery, including in the rural and community setting. Although there is no requirement, general surgery residency programs have begun to incorporate curriculums to train residents in this discipline. As a small rural community program, we recently instituted a voluntary and structured curriculum, and our initial experience is shared here. Our curriculum was voluntary for all general surgical residents for the academic years 2016–2017. The curriculum consisted of online training, bedside training, console simulation, bedside assisting, and operating at the console. During the fiscal year of 2016, 193 robot-assisted surgeries performed within the General Surgery Department. Fourteen of fifteen residents participated in the curriculum, with the exception being a resident new to our program. A survey was sent to the residents to evaluate their opinions towards robotic surgery and the curriculum, with 12/15 residents responding. Overall, residents’ impressions were very favorable, with all reporting being either very or mostly satisfied with the curriculum and most, 58.4%, reporting there participating level on the robot to be appropriate. Importantly most, 91.7% did not think that the curriculum put an undue stress on their time or that it was detrimental to other aspects of their training. This study shows that a community rural general surgery program can incorporate a voluntary robotic curriculum effectively with high resident participation and satisfaction.

Keywords

General surgery Residency Training Robotics 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

William Krause WD and Julio Brid MD declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5).

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients for being included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Antoniou SA, Antoniou GA, Antoniou AI, Granderath F-A (2015) Past, Present, and Future of minimally invasive abdominal surgery. JSLS : J Soc Laparoendosc Surg 19(3):e2015.00052.  https://doi.org/10.4293/JSLS.2015.00052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gadacz T, Talamini M (1991) Traditional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am J Surg 161(3):336–338 (Ipswich, MA. Accessed August 9, 2017)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Herron DM, Marohn M, Group S-MRSC (2008) A consensus document on robotic surgery. Surg Endosc 22(2):313–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-007-9727-5 (discussion 1–2)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wormer B, Dacey K, Heniford B et al (2014) The first nationwide evaluation of robotic general surgery: a regionalized, small but safe start. Surg Endosc 28(3):767–776. (Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed August 9, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winder J, Juza R, Lyn-Sue J et al (2016) Implementing a robotics curriculum at an academic general surgery training program: our initial experience. J Robot Surg 10(3):209–213 2017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goudas L, Gold MS, Heneghan S, Reynolds FD, Zuckerman RS (2003) A rural, community-based program can train surgical residents in advanced laparoscopy. J Am Coll Surg 197(4):620–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheatham ML, Friedell ML, Fuhrman GM, Mellinger JD, Morris JB, Schenarts PJ, Vander Meer TJ (2014) Perceptions of graduating general surgery chief residents: are they confident in their training? J Am Coll Surg 218(4):695–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farivar BS, Flannagan M, Leitman IM (2015) General surgery residents’ perception of robot-assisted procedures during surgical training. J Surg Educ 72(2):235–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tam V, Lutfi W, Novak S, Hamad A, Lee KK, Zureika AH, Zeh HT, Hogg ME (2017) Resident attitudes and compliance towards robotic surgical training. In The American Journal of Surgery, 2017, ISSN 0002-9610Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nolan HR, Christie DB, Ashley DW (2015) Comparison of attending and resident surgeons’ opinions of robotic surgery training in general surgery residency. Am Surg 81:303–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Aly EH (2014) Robotic colorectal surgery: summary of the current evidence. Int J Colorectal Dis 29:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salman M, Bell T, Martin J et al (2013) Use, cost, complications, and mortality of robotic versus nonrobotic general surgery procedures based on a nationwide database. Am Surg 79:553–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gujer MW, LeMieur TP, McCollister HM, Roberts SA, Severson PA (2009) Building and maintaining a successful surgery program in rural Minnesota. Surg Clin N Am 89 6:1349–1357, ixGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of General SurgeryMarshfield ClinicMarshfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations